Historicist: Life in Wartime
Weekend Planner: November 7–8, 2009
In this piece in yesterday's Globe, Ivor Tossell waxes intellectual on the cultural wasteland that is Wikipedia. He explains "wikigroaning," the phenomenon experienced by self-righteous smartypantses like himself upon finding that one topic, "useless to everyone but a small coterie of fans," has a longer Wikipedia entry than another topic of "genuine historical relevance." His first example: that Lost character John Locke has a longer entry than the philosopher John Locke. And it’s all the fault of those pesky "crowdsourcing enthusiasts who tell us that in the 21st century, everything is better written by amateurs or crowds."
Though he admits that he uses the site "every day," the guy really seems to have a wiki-hangup. (Look, we made up a word—and we're amateurs!) In this recent piece, Tossell gripes and grumbles about Penguin Books’ attempt to create a collaborative internet novel where anyone could write, edit, or delete as they pleased. Tossell claims that collaborative writing is an "artificial notion, a novelty act of the creative world"—of course the project turned out disastrously.
But is this sort of creative collaboration really a 21st century invention as Tossell suggests? Didn't anyone else play childhood games involving taking turns writing paragraphs to create a story, or coming up with words to add to never-ending sentences? (Okay, maybe that last one is from a drinking game, but you get the point.) And what about Shakespeare? Many scholars believe that some of Shakespeare’s plays were collaborative efforts, as well as several of Da Vinci’s paintings. The collaborative process that Tossell finds so hopelessly lowbrow and pedestrian has likely been used by the greats for centuries.
And another thing. Tossell thinks Lost has a "small coterie of fans"? According to Wikipedia (Snap, yo!), Lost’s pilot episode gave ABC its strongest ratings since Who Wants to be a Millionaire, and the second season premiere drew over 23 million viewers. Additionally, a 2006 survey of twenty countries determined that Lost was the second most-watched TV show in the world, after CSI Miami.
But who knows if that's even true.
Photos by Britannica.com and BuddyTV.com.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm just guessing that the writer of this entry is either a lost or a wikipedia fan.
Tossell should go check out lostpedia.org - a whole wikipedia-clone devoted entirely to the show and every minute detail about it.
yeah totally agree. tossell is high-falootin' and really off-base. nice post!
I'm guessing the author of this article can't get a letter to the editor published in the Globe so they're writing it here. I already read this article today in the Globe and although I am a Wikipedia fan, I do find it funny there article on Locke the philosopher is longer than the article on Locke the character.
Actually, I found Tossel's piece to be pretty right on. That many more people have watched Lost than studied philosophy and political science was sort of his entire point.
And I really, really, really hope that the author of this piece isn't saying that wikipedia is a great work of art, nor that Penguin's experiment was readable.
Guys your site is broken, I can't edit this article!
I find it sad that wiki has pages for not just season but individual episodes of certain shows - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_%28Lost%29#Part_1 for example - but if Locke has a small page it's because people like Tossel complained rather than contributed. When I find what I believe to be a notable absence I create an article, and expand stubs. I won't contribute to Locke because I don't have any knowledge on point.
Wiki will evolve to the point where faddish shows will have their pages redacted and immortals like Locke's will steadily grow.
Get writing Mr Tossel!
...And this relates to Toronto how??
Mark, there's a logical problem with your assertion. Wikipedia is a completely voluntary project, which in other words means that participation is not mandatory. As a result, there is very little actual responsibility for any involved party to contribute, let alone contribute positively. Hence, if I don't want to contribute, I don't have to, because it is not my responsibility to take part in wikipedia, even if it is for a simple error I could easily fix. Responsibility, if any felt, really comes from one's own moral interpretation.
If Tossel wants to vent, let him. Wikipedia only succeeds only because it is popular, not because it is what we want to make it out as. As a cultural phenomenon reflecting populism, it shows: an article on a TV show character has more content than that of a philosopher bearing the same name??!
I personally have had enough of having to deal with edit wars and arbitrary policies that have still yet to be resolved. As if it is a fire that can't be put out.
I thought Tossell's piece was hilarious and true. Pardo's article here is just a ridiculously stupid ad hoc attack, and only serves to prove that many people who contribute to Wikipedia take themselves far too seriously.
Let Tossell vent. This is not the issue. I think what is perhaps a more interesting topic is Tossell's arrogance toward the content of wikipedia, as he presumes to decide what does and does not matter to our society. His ostentatious, high-nosed language makes clear for me that he is missing the very point of wikipedia. The site marks the coming of a new way of experiencing the world, in which each individual, each bystander, can be a participant in the discussion, can contribute and collaborate.
What is amazing is not so much that you can find information on just about anything, or even that many courts across the US have accepted wikipedia pages as judicial evidence, but rather that the posters, the wiki writers themselves, are so willing to contribute and collaborate and get the facts right on any obscure topic one could hope to find. Wikipedia is not simply a popular site - it is a move to a more participative society in which we can write the story and be sure that it is correct. I do not use wikipedia, but I understand its importance in the world. I get why others love it. If you think philosopher Locke needs more wiki pages, please post them. If you need more Lost posts, please run to the computer. But don't let Tossell speak to you with the arrogance of someone who understands what should matter to you. This is a new "wiki" culture in which you can form a network of individuals anywhere who love what you love and are willing to collaborate.
I think Rebecca's totally right - this guy really doesn't get the wikipedia thing and she's right to say that indeed lost is popular and there has been successful collaboration throughout history. yeah!!
Word up she's right!!
The thing a lot of people don't understand is that collaboration is *difficult*. Trying to get anything done on Wikipedia demonstrates this. It's often worth the effort, but it is effort.
true. but her post is right on. what we're doing right now is collaboration - and we're amateurs. living evidence that it works!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_convention
“Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, ‘Jimbo’s second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.
For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter ‘Scientific Discovery’. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with ‘Jimbo’ and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to ‘Jimbo’s’ opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time.”
Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland